Political Enlightenment

Direct democracy pretty quickly becomes mob rule. There needs to be checks and balances.

In this case it would be a constitutional democracy which would bar people from violating other peoples rights. Of course with a super majority amendments could be made. But the whole point to a democracy is that usually (usually be the key word) the majority knows what is right. And even if the majority get it wrong it would be unlikely for the super-majority to get it wrong.

Know democracy. Democracy means government.

Actually Government literally means "control mind". That for sure is not the meaning of democracy.

That's not what I meant.

That is a huge bandwagon fallacy, but better than most alternatives sadly.

*Pink Floyd music intesifies

Awake ones are usually called dreamers because they can actually understand that the government is a nightmare.

I'd say America's method is about as good as a nation's rule is gonna get.

You're absolutely right. There is no perfect government. We've got a pretty good one, especially right now with the president putting pressure on politicians. Hopefully some of his term limit ideas will become reality and we can get some real Americans in the government game.

Term limits for congress and no more lifetime benefits and pay checks among other things. It will eliminate career politicians and give opportunities to more people to participate in the government.

Thank god. Thought you were referencing when he said we should get RID of presidential term limits, like China.

Not paying congress is a bad idea though. It limits even the POSSIBILITY of someone who isn't insanely rich. without a salary you HAVE to be independently wealthy to engage in public office. Get rid of term limits though.

They're still going to get paid while they're an acting elected congressman. Just no more 150k checks for life just for getting elected that one time.

Umm... I don't think legislators get a 150k pension after serving one, or any number of terms.

Yep. People should learn to respect their president. I didn't really like it when Obama was in office, but I respected him as president.

we've known this since Donald Trump became president

Things really haven't changed changed, maybe accelerated. And all Trump has really done is to take the mask off of how many presidents acted before him but more slyly.

NOBODY for president! upvote

I couldn't agree more. They should abolish all governments everywhere. I don't recognize political authority. We don't need a bunch of squabbling assholes telling us how to live our lives because that's all they ever do. They always like to complicate thing because they think it makes them look clever. We simply need anarchy because that is the natural state of things which is were this guy comes in. If only it wasn't just a movie.....

Most people don't know what anarchy really means. It doesn't necessarily mean a free for all.

Not necessarily, true. But, who's going to protect you from malicious people taking advantage of their new freedoms? Perhaps you think everyone will just get along and work together for the greater good.

Everyone doesn't have to get a long necessarily. So what if people take advantage of it? That's what it's all about. Looking after and defending yourself without an unnecessary system to "protect" us.

Anarchy exists to be conquered. Anarchy would only exist for a short time before Neegan takes over and makes the anarchists his bitches. All I have to say to anarchists is this: enjoy being a slave.

Pardon me? We anarchists are anything but slaves. It is all those law abiding son's of bitches who are the slaves. Those weak willed individuals who date to speak up for them selves even if there lives depended on it. Us anarchists are free men. Why would we even want to follow rules we did not make or follow leaders we did not choose? Anarchy wouldn't exist such a short while if governments was simply abolished or overthrown and the law gone with it.

Anarchy exists to be conquered. A warlord will conquer you and everyone you know. He will install his own form of government, and it will be a harsh one for many years, to keep his new peasants in line. Speech like yours would definitely be punished because you have no rights in his government and what you spoke goes against his authority. You do what you're told and disobedience will be punished. You are now a slave. I hope those couple of years of anarchist bliss before you were discovered and conquered were worth it.

You can try to fight back, assuming you can find a weapon because you're whole community has been disarmed, but failure means death.

You don't know what anarchy is dipshit. You're too pampered by first world living to even begin to think you know what anarchy is. Our government saves your ungrateful-ignorant ass from anarchy.

Well in that case a loose democracy is not that bad as long as it doesn't get to complicated. I'm not pampered by first world living at all. I can look past the fog of lies society pumps into people. I live by old values and philosophies. I'd rather live in a hut in the woods for free then in a regular house paying a f**kton every month. Only I can;t do that because then the government's going to nag it's their land which it is not. They wan't everyone to ''live normal'' which only benefits them because of the money and taxes you have to pay. It's always about stupid shit like that. What is it about the word money that makes even reasonable people behave like idiots? People simply can't look past social constructs like that. Money has no value at all. It only has because people are made to believe it has. But then, Thing is:

It would be nice if we could live however we wanted. But, money progress money.

That right there is a very common question against anarchy,and it's stupidly funny how easy is it to answer it

Firls of all,just by asking that question,you are clarifying that you yourself would do nothing about those malicious people.If you were to witness a robbery,a murder,a rape or anything,you'd just act like nothing's happening.And second,you are making a gigantic generalization that nobody in the world would do anything about it.It's a big world,dude.You sure nobody would do a thing?I would.I'd probably get my ass kicked,but hey,at least I'd try

The idea that government and police are necessary to deal with criminals is the logic of a little kid saying:"Daddy! Save me from the bogeyman! I'm scared!" How about you man up,grow some balls,and learn to protect yourself without the assholes with a badge?

Acknowledging a fair question doesn't mean I wouldn't or am incapable of stopping the strong from preying on the weak.

Haven't you ever seen The Walking Dead? Anarchy exists until someone is strong enough to create their own government. There will be groups and gangs that prey on others. Anarchy is murder waiting to happen.

Anarchy is a joke. The best you can hope for in anarchy is that someone will create a government for the people that's created by the people and that you get to love there.

Oh wait the world is anarchy and that already happened.

Seems like you are advocating a form of anarchy. It's important to note anarchy doesn't necessarily mean chaos. That said I'm not advocating no government. I'm advocating direct democracy which means we decide on all the legislation and policies ourselves. We can even apply this in lieu of a supreme court where 2/3rds of voters can make amendments and those with law degrees and licenses vote on whether certain laws are constitutional.

Dude, the law is just a thing that was once invented by rich people to keep us "common people" in check. Lot of them unnecessary. It only ever disturbs how things should be. I read a forum post once from a guy in Norway who hit a guy that was pinning a girl against the wall. In Norway it's Illegal to interfere in dangerous situations with violence, which proves that the law is morraly wrong. Just because it's written in bunch of books doesn't make it right. It's all just words on paper nothing more.

A voice should be earned, not given.

Beautiful meme! Nicely said!

This meme is not necessarily anti authority. It's more about placing the power where it belongs, the people. "Representative" is flawed at best and has degraded to the point I won't even call it democratic, more like oligarchic. In any case we now have the ability to get rid of all of congress and the presidency and even the Supreme Court and replace it with direct democracy. It's kind of like a never ending rolling referendum.

Ahhhh, so let the coasts run the whole thing.

Let the people run the whole thing. However I'm not opposed to splitting the states up into regions. You could have something like a northeast, south, Midwest, Central, southwest, Northwest, and Southern Cal. This each area would represent their own interests and not bully the others.

So what happens when the northwest isn't growing enough food to support it's citizens, and the south decides it needs more in trade for what they supply? Or maybe get more from mexico in trade and don't want to deal with the north at all? That's just one example of what could and would go wrong in that scenario. I didn't think of you as an anarchist until you floated that idea. For someone that thinks too much is spent on military, imagine the waste when you have all these different factions across the country, each with their own military? Oh yes, and who gets the nukes?

Some of your questions are indeed important. Personally I believe in abundance not scarcity. This means if people work in cooperation there will be enough for all. The market from each region will buy the necessarily goods to meet the peoples basic needs. This doesn't mean that there wouldn't be squabbles, even war. But there will be more autonomy and laws that directly relate to each region therefor greater potential justice.

This is not about a perfect system. This is about mitigating the worst aspects of consolidation of power which has led to mass corruption, environmental degradation, economic inequality, neocolonialism, etc, you name it.

As for who gets the nukes. If we're at all sane we'll work hard to rid the world of nukes as at any given moment we can wipe ourselves out. And that's just not smart, especially considering who's got their finger on the button.

Hundreds of millions working in co-operation just because they should, I kind of have a feeling that will never work. We can't get 435 people making 175,000.00 a year + fat bennies to get that done, what makes you think an entire population can do it for far less??? Your world is idyllic and i would whole-heartedly approve if it could work. However I'm looking at how to make the real world more tolerable. It's not about ridding the world of all of man's imperfections, it's about managing and containing them.
As for environmental degradation, I'm not sure where you live but I can SEE the improvements in Virginia from when I was a child. There aren't the beaches full of brown foam phosphates, rogue dumps at the end of every dirt road, waterways clogged with trash and chronically gray hazy skies. We have and continue to make improvements in that area.
Economic equality has never existed and never will. We've had this discussion before. All that setting a median standard does is breed mediocrity. Not that there isn't plenty of that as it is, but rewarding exceptional, leaves the door open for those willing to take advantage of the opportunity. As in any neighborhood though, if you leave a door open, sooner or later some unwanted guests will get in, but it seems ludicrous to me to bolt the door closed to all, because of the few.

You've addressed a lot of topics which would be difficult to properly address in one response. For now I'll just respond to your first paragraph which doubts direct democracy could get things done. First off, the 435 people make 175,000 plus are corrupted by their fat salaries and basically legal bribery. Honestly I'd be happier if they stayed home.

Also maybe people would be more involved in a system that gave two $H*t$ about their well being. One in which their concerns would actually be heard and enacted on.

Lastly I've studied and am helping to develop direct democracy and I can say without a doubt it can work. Maybe it wouldn't work perfectly, after all what does in mans world. But it would be a whole hell of a lot better than anything the world has seen since maybe going back to the days in which anarchy meant a whole lot different of a thing than most people falsely associate it with today. However that is not really possible anymore seeing the population and technology that we now how the deal with.

In any case it is my hope you and others will sincerely investigate direct democracy. Most concerns you can come up with have already been addressed. And the ones we've yet to suss out I welcome people's input so that we can be properly prepared come the time society at large is ready to politically evolve as a species.

You didn't even address the 1st paragraph. You gave a "maybe" and say you've studied and are developing something. You then go on to admit "it may not work perfectly". Then you say it would work a whole lot better than what we have. What I hear so far sounds like the wild west. I don't think that went to well for most during that time.

When you approach something with skeptism you’ll find things to be skeptical of. When you come to something in the spirit of support you see all kinds of possibility. Both can be self fulfilling prophecies. Maybe it’s better to start with what you want and work towards achieving it.

Poking holes is what I do best. It generally serves me well to find the holes, then figure out how to work around them or in spite of them. I'm not a "glass is half empty person in reality, but that doesn't mean that it's half full either. Its just a half a glass of water.

Well said man